Content
75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A solid, actionable instruction-only skill body: a clear six-step audit workflow, concrete attribute and normalization specifics, and a well-defined output format. Main weaknesses are minor duplication between Process and Guidelines, LaTeX-arrow formatting artifacts, and no explicit findings-verification step before reporting.
Suggestions
Remove the 'Naming Policies' and 'URL Normalization' Guidelines bullets that restate Process steps 1 and 3, keeping each rule in one place.
Replace the literal "$\rightarrow$" LaTeX artifacts with plain "→" or "->" so the markdown renders cleanly.
Add a short verification step (e.g. re-confirm each finding against the matched source lines) before producing the report, and consider moving the detailed route-normalization matching rules into a one-level-deep reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body assumes domain competence (no explanations of what ASP.NET Core, fetch, or axios are) and stays lean, but the Guidelines "Naming Policies" and "URL Normalization" bullets substantially restate Process steps 1 and 3, and stray LaTeX artifacts ("$\rightarrow$") add noise. Not 5: the duplication and formatting artifacts are trimmable; not 3: the rest is efficient with only minor over-explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete attribute-level guidance ([JsonPropertyName], [BindRequired], C# 11 required, [ProducesResponseType]) and concrete normalization examples ("${this.apiUrl}/users/${id}" → "/users/{id}"). Not 5: it is instruction-only (reporting-only skill, so no code is fine), but lacks concrete discovery commands or patterns for locating consumers (e.g. grep/ripgrep patterns), leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps (naming policies → contract surface → consumer matching → both comparison directions → report) with a "report as 'no client consumer located' rather than guessing" checkpoint. Not 5: there is no explicit verification pass over accumulated findings before producing the report; not 3: the sequence is complete and checkpoints for the risky guess-step are present. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections (When to use / Process / Output Format / Guidelines) with no bundle files to reference, so the single-file structure is appropriate. Not 5: the body is ~70 lines (above the under-50-line simple-skill exception) and the detailed URL/route matching rules and output-format details are candidates for a one-level-deep reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |